Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

J. Charlie Sullivan

dblp:84/10010 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Systems, architecture and hardware · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Robot manipulation · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Robotics › Robot manipulation › tactile sensing
tactile perception
0.112012
Brain-inspired Bayesian perception for biomimetic robot touch · ICRA 2012
Robotics › Robot manipulation
tactile sensing
0.012012
Brain-inspired Bayesian perception for biomimetic robot touch · ICRA 2012
Robotics › Robot manipulation › tactile sensing › contact sensing
whisker sensing
0.012012
Brain-inspired Bayesian perception for biomimetic robot touch · ICRA 2012

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

maximum likelihood estimation · 0.1bayesian sequential analysis · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2012 Brain-inspired Bayesian perception for biomimetic robot touch
abstract
Studies of decision making in animals suggest a neural mechanism of evidence accumulation for competing percepts according to Bayesian sequential analysis. This model of perception is embodied here in a biomimetic tactile sensing robot based on the rodent whisker system. We implement simultaneous perception of object shape and location using two psychological test paradigms: first, a free-response paradigm in which the agent decides when to respond, implemented with Bayesian sequential analysis; and second an interrogative paradigm in which the agent responds after a fixed interval, implemented with maximum likelihood estimation. A benefit of free-response Bayesian perception is that it allows tuning of reaction speed against accuracy. In addition, we find that large gains in decision performance are achieved with unforced responses that allow null decisions on ambiguous data. Therefore free-response Bayesian perception offers benefits for artificial systems that make them more animal-like in behavior.
Nathan F. Lepora, J. Charlie Sullivan, Benjamin Mitchinson, Martin J. Pearson, Kevin N. Gurney, Tony J. Prescott
ICRA2